EVE Search - [Proposal] Shield gang bonuses should be applied just like armour ones

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Shield gang bonuses should be applied just like armour ones

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sepheir Sepheron Caldari BAHRAM Military	Posted - 2010.01.03 08:09:00 - [61] Originally by: Sokratesz What is the bonus? a very small increase in recharge rate? Hardly impressive, except maybe on drakes and nighthawks.. Passive tanking shield ships will receive the bonus to shield regeneration making their tank heavier, exceptionally heavier on some ships. Active tanking shield ships will simply boost the 2-15% of missing shields. Armor tanking ships cannot regenerate armor, which is why their armor is added passively without reducing the current amount. Until you want to give armor bonus two upsides, as the shield bonus has (perhaps a 1-7.5% resistance modifier?), this is not a reasonable approach. (Basically, shields get regeneration and max shields, armor just gets max armor)
Krans Hopeson Hypercube Ventures	Posted - 2010.01.03 10:42:00 - [62] It seems to me that the "correct" solution has already been pointed out -- make the bonuses persist in some way between sessions. How about this as a proposal: when the shield level is greater than 100%, the shield should decay towards 100% at the current shield recharge rate rather than disappearing instantaneously. I suggest leaving shield reset on docking as it is. -- "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask."
Captain Narmio Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.01.04 01:06:00 - [63] Every shield-buffered PVPer in the game would gladly trade the ludicrously tiny increased recharge from the shield HP ganglink/skills away for the instant addition of the bonus HP. Every single one. And every shield tanking PVE-er will have a booster fit, so they don't actually have a problem. If giving up the extra hp/s recharge is what it takes to convince people here (who have obviously never really flown a shield-buffered ship in PVP - Pro Tip: We're not talking about purger drakes, people!) that the bonus HP should be added instantly, then that's what the CSM should consider submitting. Absolutely supported - with or without a proportional recharge penalty, this is a simple tweak that fixes a big balance disparity. Persistence of all bonuses between sessions would be nicer, of course, but that sounds significantly more technically complex.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.04 09:38:00 - [64] Thank you everyone for the discussion, I will raise this issue for the next CSM meeting on the 17th. When will TQ hit the 100K PCU mark? Place a bet!
B0X Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.01.11 03:22:00 - [65] I really don't see the issue with passive recharge, you'll get that with extra shield anyway, it really is a non issue. Surely this is about adding the HP boost when the bonus is applied, of which I fully support. Two things to remember also, it's not only the shield tankers that get the bonus and the recharge rate slows down from 33% upwards. Ex Nyx pilot (another char)
Ardetia The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.11 20:50:00 - [66] Edited by: Ardetia on 11/01/2010 20:50:49 Originally by: Helen Highwater Originally by: Red Thunder Supported :) And to the people that say the recharge rate bonus is good enough, it really is stupidly tiny.....the real bonus you need is that bit extra ehp to keep your fleet going for longer You get the recharge bonus and the EHP buff. You're still getting the bonus to your max shields regardless. Seriously, do you guys even play the game? recharge bonus = crap, it doesnt amount to ANYTHING, EVER, unless you are exclusively _always_ passive recharge tanked.. but even then its annoying to have to wait every friggin time you change session EHP = bonus is only good if you ACTUALLY GET IT GET IT? wait, instead we can just do the same with armor :) that will satisfy everyone, including me oh, and supported! The Flying Tigers are recruiting!
Jim Raynor Clarity of Purpose	Posted - 2010.01.11 22:31:00 - [67] yes pls ------ I'll make a sig later.
Arcane Azmadi First Flying Wing Inc Primary.	Posted - 2010.01.12 09:34:00 - [68] I don't know if anyone has pointed this out already (I'm not reading 3 pages of this stuff to find out) but because your shield status is reset everytime your gang jumps from one system to another, you will almost never have time to passively recharge the missing shield before you either fly into combat, or have to jump again (unless you're running a gate camp). Honestly, the people opposed to this proposal aren't concerned with "balance". This isn't a major threat to game balance between shield and armour tankers, it's just a matter of consistancy and ironing out an issue that annoys quite a few people. The people who are arguing so fervently against it are just people who don't like shields and don't want to see them get ANY stronger than they are. Go on and deny it. I dare you.
Quivering Palm SI Radio	Posted - 2010.01.12 10:46:00 - [69] Edited by: Quivering Palm on 12/01/2010 10:47:48 The exact same behavior is observed when you change ships from your POS's Ship Maintenance Array. When ship that has passive shield tank will be boarded it will start from around 80% shields or as low as 25% shields (assuming modules like Large Shield Extenders are used). This gives passive shield tanked ships considerably less buffer tank than what should be expected compared to armor tanked ships. In effect, any passive shield tanked ship has a distinctive disadvantage if you choose to use it in defending your POS from attacks or if you want to board one and go into a fight right away. I fully support this!
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.17 17:19:00 - [70] This has been discussed at the meeting today and was deemed not good enough a proposal. So I will ask those who voted against with what kind of compromise they can come up. The argument that shield and armour are inherently different is a sound one. However, enter a bonus that is the same (non different! Oo) on both platforms, and one of them is at a strong disadvantage there, and then the argument suddenly stops making sense. Additionally, it was repeated that shields receive an advantage in the form of recharge - however in my opinion that 'advantage' may hardly carry the name because the actual HP/s gain of shield tanks is very small (unless the ship is specifically fitted for it, but pvp ships for whom gang bonuses are most useful rarely if ever are), and a small increase to something small is...negligible Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.01.17 17:38:00 - [71] Not supported. I'll support it once you change the suggestion to include a shield recharge penalty proportional to the capacity bonus.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.17 17:43:00 - [72] Originally by: James Tritanius Not supported. I'll support it once you change the suggestion to include a shield recharge penalty proportional to the capacity bonus. I was thinking of that...would it really be that easy? Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
Empire Dweller OneManShallWhoreThemAll	Posted - 2010.01.17 23:39:00 - [73] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: James Tritanius Not supported. I'll support it once you change the suggestion to include a shield recharge penalty proportional to the capacity bonus. I was thinking of that...would it really be that easy? It would be as simple as one more formula for the server to calculate. Basically After bonus shield recharge is replaced by Pre bonus shield recharge. Thats simplified for the math disabled- get a math dweeb to come up with something more polished. What we have are shields and armor- yes theyre different. As it stands now- with fleet bonuses applied- you would have to be a moron to use a shield ship if you cared about those bonuses at all. Reasons why are shield recharge is too low to "fill" up the shield capacity the bonus gives you most shield ships are buffer fit- not passive tanked and not active tanked any interuption in the bonus resets the shield to the lower amount- when it returns you have to "fill" it up again Basically i see three options for a proposal. 1. Make armor not "fill" up automatically when fleet bonuses are applied. Just like shields dont fill up now- the capacity is there, just not filled. 2. Make shields fill up as armor fills up now when bonuses are applied. This may or may not include a condition of using the pre-bonus shield recharge as the ships passive recharge bonus. 3. Make a "timer" so that when the fleet bonus is interupted the shields dont "deplete" back to their unbonused state automatically. This would allow shields to be repped up (or passively recharged) and hold their bonused amounts long enough for a jump through a gate. Cons- shields and armor are different and both should have advantages/disadvantages. Some could say the way it is now- is a disadvantage meant to offset the advantages. Pros- Shields as they are now- are so blatantly worse for fleet pvp- that they are largely unused. None of the three above "solutions" will nerf of buff armor or shields in my opinion. They would make shield ships more of an option in fleet pvp again. Also- fitting requirements of shield rr mods sucks balls. Not the issue at hand- just throwing it out there. Sucks balls.
FU22 Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.17 23:52:00 - [74] Not supported unless Armor gets a passive regen added in aswell Originally by: Millie Clode Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.01.18 01:17:00 - [75] Originally by: FU22 Not supported unless Armor gets a passive regen added in aswell This.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.01.18 01:40:00 - [76] Originally by: FU22 Not supported unless Armor gets a passive regen added in aswell and you read the math about the uselessness of passive recharge except for passive fits? in worst case we can use this compromise.
Empire Dweller OneManShallWhoreThemAll	Posted - 2010.01.18 01:41:00 - [77] Originally by: FU22 Not supported unless Armor gets a passive regen added in aswell How is this remotely related to the question at hand? The problem- shield tanked ships are not being used in fleet pvp. The reasons are clear and stated above. Are you telling me the extra 5 or 6 dps per second that a shield tanked ship with a bonus gets bugs you? Do you realize the resist bonus that armor gets far surpasses this in terms of tank? Aside from all that- if that is really the issue- we have an option to remove the extra passive recharge bonus. The amount is so small as to be truly laughable anyway.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.01.18 03:00:00 - [78] This fix should be easy: Fleet Bonus: Shield Capacity Bonus: +X% Shield Recharge Penalty: +X%, Where X is the same. This should keep the regen constant.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.18 05:38:00 - [79] Originally by: James Tritanius This fix should be easy: Fleet Bonus: Shield Capacity Bonus: +X% Shield Recharge Penalty: +X%, Where X is the same. This should keep the regen constant. Indeed. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
GIGAR Domini Umbrus DEFI4NT	Posted - 2010.01.18 07:34:00 - [80] Originally by: James Tritanius This fix should be easy: Fleet Bonus: Shield Capacity Bonus: +X% Shield Recharge Penalty: +X%, Where X is the same. This should keep the regen constant. This could be an easy fix. Supported.
SickSeven Nova Aquilae	Posted - 2010.01.18 11:24:00 - [81] supported!
Aphrodite Skripalle	Posted - 2010.01.18 11:54:00 - [82]
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.18 18:46:00 - [83] I have edited the wiki article to reflect the change and will re-raise the proposal. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:20:00 - [84] I really think the big problem is the session change issue - it resets every time you change sessions. Basically, if it was instantly applied (like armor), armor tanks would have a lesser bonus than shield tanks. As it is, shield tanks have a lesser (worthless in many situations) bonus than armor tanks. Really, it is a useless bonus for anything but drakes when going directly into a fight (gate/bridge/undock). For everything else, it is only useful in a camp. Reset the bonus for pilots below a a newly promoted FC, WC, SC - not every time the fleet moves. Fix Local
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.01.23 13:29:00 - [85] Originally by: Ardetia Originally by: Helen Highwater Originally by: Red Thunder Supported :) And to the people that say the recharge rate bonus is good enough, it really is stupidly tiny.....the real bonus you need is that bit extra ehp to keep your fleet going for longer You get the recharge bonus and the EHP buff. You're still getting the bonus to your max shields regardless. Seriously, do you guys even play the game? recharge bonus = crap, it doesnt amount to ANYTHING, EVER, unless you are exclusively _always_ passive recharge tanked.. but even then its annoying to have to wait every friggin time you change session EHP = bonus is only good if you ACTUALLY GET IT GET IT? wait, instead we can just do the same with armor :) that will satisfy everyone, including me oh, and supported! I really don't understand why, but the rest of the CSM seems to think the recharge bonus is somehow significant. Apart from a very small number of fits, hardly any pvp ships rely on passive recharge. However, I amended the proposal to include a change so that it would not affect the passive recharge rate, but then it was dubbed as being a nerf to recharge-oriented ships when compared to the current situation. I'm not gonna argue about it anymore, it's just going round in circles and makes me feel like a retard. I have summarized the whole thing and sent it to someone relevant to see what they think of it. Until then, too bad. - Sok. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
Pallidum Treponema Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.01.23 14:58:00 - [86] Originally by: Helen Highwater You get the recharge bonus and the EHP buff. You're still getting the bonus to your max shields regardless. Seriously, do you guys even play the game? Sorry to have to ask this, but do you? Do you even know how things work in combat? Let me illustrate: Phoenix, 4-slot tank. EHP: 2.5M (3.4M with Levi bonus) Passive recharge: 244 DPS (372 DPS / Levi) Let's say that a Phoenix survives for two full minutes during a hotdrop. The difference between a Phoenix with and without a Levi (max skills, 3 siege warfare links, mindlink) is therefore (372-244)120 = 15360 damage more worth of tank, or roughly 0.4% more damage required from the passive recharge. Phoenix, passive T2, 2x Invuln, 4x Hardeners, Shield Recharger, 4x Shield Power Relay, Damage Control* EHP: 2.9M (3.95M / Levi) Passive recharge: 998 DPS (1466 / Levi) The numbers for this setup gives us: (1466-998)120 = 56160 damage more worth of tank. This is a whopping 1.4% more damage required to kill it due to the increased passive recharge. Ragnarok, 2x Estamel's Invuln, 4x Pith X-type hardeners, shield recharger, 5x Shield Power Relay, Damage Control* EHP: 33.5M (47.7M EHP / Levi bonus) Passive recharge: 10530 DPS (15464 DPS / Levi) Let's assume that we have 50 dreads shooting at it, with an average DPS of 3500, a reasonable number assuming a decent hotdrop. This is 175000 DPS incoming damage. Remove passive tank from the incoming DPS numbers, and the unbonused Rag will live for 3 minutes, 24 seconds whereas the one with a Levi for bonuses lives for 4 minutes, 59 seconds. This means that the passive recharge will add an amazing 1.5M damage required to kill the Ragnarok with the Leviathan bonus, or a whopping 3.09% more. This surely is game-breaking to the point where it's warranted to nerf shield capitals of their own gang bonuses at every jump. </sarcasm> The shield tanked Ragnarok takes just under two hours to fully recharge its shield to max. Completely overpowered, amrite? ;) The passive tank fitted Phoenix takes an hour and a half to fully recharge its shields. Oh, and said Ragnarok also takes six and a half hours to recharge its capacitor, making it an impractical setup at best. But what if I just barely have enough DPS to break the tank of the Ragnarok, and it can now tank us with the additional Levi boost? Alright, let's assume you could break 10k DPS tank, but not 15k DPS tank. This is, I admit, an effect of the Leviathan bonus that will make it harder for a small gang to kill a supercapital. Given the best situation here, you have roughly 5K DPS more than the passive recharge. Since shield recharge isn't linear, let's assume an average DPS against the unbonused titan of 10k DPS. This means that the titan that you previously could kill in only 55 minutes, 50 seconds is now invulnerable to your little gang. This I will sadly have to concede, as it's clearly too imbalanced for the game. But what about subcapitals? Well, let's take a drake, which has 60k EHP and 600 DPS ta... oh, heck. Who are we kidding? If you can't kill the drake just because a Leviathan gave it gang bonuses, you fail at this game. Moot point. Bottom line is: You get the peak recharge bonus today. This is generally the key point of a passive tank, not the EHP itself. Applying the additional HP immediately won't change the peak recharge bonus. If you're having trouble breaking the peak recharge tank bonus, you fail at this game. Shield tanked ships need to get their shield bonus applied immediately. This is especially so for capitals, where the recharge timers can range up to hours. --
titains	Posted - 2010.01.26 22:44:00 - [87] Supported if shields don't get instant hp then armor shouldn't get instant hp
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.01.27 22:13:00 - [88] I dont understand the reluctance on the part of csm. Having shield ships get zero ehp from gang bonuses is a problem- illustrated by the low amount of shield ships used in fleets compared to armor ships. The disparity is vastly increased whith shield tanked cap ships. Ive read the csm logs- and theres not a lot of explanation of why they think its fine as is. I would like to see a post from a few other csm members explaining their position on this more clearly.
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2010.01.30 05:39:00 - [89] Supported, however, I think that more than anything, the session change reset is the biggest issue here. However, how can that be tackled easily? I'm not sure it can.
wert668	Posted - 2010.01.30 12:12:00 - [90] You know, you can exploit what you suggest by micromanagement. If you get free HP you just need join and leave fleet repeatedly, this will cost CCP to make whole now way to count bonuses in order to prevent this, I really don't think they are going to do this just for you

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.